COMMENTS (0)

RECOMMEND (248)

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PLUSONE

MORE

E-MAIL

PRINT

TEXT SIZE

While Japan seems to have changed its mind, and Australia was never really that involved in Burma, why is Germany silent? Why does Germany have the right to undermine our fight for better conditions in Burma?

Metta,
Heiko Schaefer
Karlsruhe, Germany [Top]

Kick Burma out of the UN

July 03, 2003—If the international community is sincere about pressuring the military in Burma to give up power, and as sanctions are proving to o­nly have a limited impact, I recommend the UN and its affiliated agencies and organizations revoke Burma’s seat.

That seat does not belong to the regime anyway. They took it and it was never theirs to take. The international community can issue a firm rebuke and designate the seat for Burma’s elected representatives. It should go to the National League for Democracy or the exiled government in Washington, or should be unoccupied.

The world can do much more than financial sanctions. It is time to end the illegitimate occupation of Burma’s seat at the UN.

Mathida [Top]

An Open Letter to Kofi Annan

June 16, 2003—Dear Secretary General,

I have seen in the news o­n the Australian Brodcasting Corp that Razali Ismail has business connections with the Burmese government. I notice o­n his last visit to Burma he did not give fair answers to the press in regards to questions about Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Why? If we do hear that she has been man-handled, injured or intimidated in anyway, I think it would be time you replaced Razali. There has been no progress for too long.

J D Thompson
Melbourne, Australia [Top]

Canada Clarified

June 09, 2003—I am writing to correct a reference in the commentary by Kavi Chongkittavorn in the 8 June o­n-line edition of The Irrawaddy regarding the international reaction to the repression in Burma. While we usually appreciate Khun Kavi’s analysis, in this particular case, Canada’s policy towards Burma was seriously misstated.

Let me state categorically that Canada has been and continues to be second to none in our firmness towards the regime in Burma. For a number of years, Canada has had in place numerous strong measures against Burma in an effort to move Burma towards national reconciliation and democracy. We have consistently urged Burmese authorities to engage in a substantive dialogue with democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and have urged them to release all political prisoners.

On June 2 2003, Canada’s Foreign Minister Bill Graham issued a statement deploring the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and her colleagues and demanding their immediate release. Mr Graham also called o­n Burmese authorities to investigate the attack o­n Aung San Suu Kyi's convoy and identify those responsible. Canada's serious concerns about the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and her colleagues and the attack o­n her convoy have been communicated at senior levels directly to Burmese authorities.

The reference in the article to Canada's position regarding humanitarian assistance is also very inaccurate. There has been no change of policy in regards to humanitarian assistance. We share the view of Aung San Suu Kyi that such assistance should o­nly be provided when it is accountable, transparent and reaches the intended recipients. In this regard, Canada has provided a very limited amount of humanitarian assistance inside Burma, mainly to deal with the HIV/AIDS crisis in Burma; this assistance was provided through UNICEF. This assistance has been provided o­nly after consultations with Aung San Suu Kyi and o­nly when it is meets the criteria set out above.

The vast bulk of Canadian assistance has gone to refugees in neighboring countries.